Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
FILEDNOV 19 2009
(5!;RANDALL LATCHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GAYLON EAVES andJIM O'NEAL, individually and doingbusiness as S&L Trucking,
Defendants.
CIV.08-5037-KES
FINALINSTRUCTIONSTO THE JURY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL INSTRUCTIONNO.1 - INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1NO.2 - BURDEN OF PROOF 2NO.3 - IMPEACHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3NO.4 - AGENCY 4NO.5 - NEGLIGENCE 5NO.6 - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7NO.7 - ASSUMPTION OF RISK 10NO.8 - ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
COMPARED 11NO.9 - DAMAGES 12NO. 10 - FUTURE DAMAGES 14NO. 11 - PRESENT VALUE 15NO. 12 - DUTIES DURING DELIBERATIONS 17
VERDICT FORM
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 2 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.1 - INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS
Members of the jury, the instructions I gave at the beginning of the trial
and during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional
instructions.
You must, of course, continue to follow the instructions I gave you
earlier, as well as those I give you now. You must not single out some
instructions and ignore others, because all are important. This is true even
though some of those I gave you at the beginning of and during the trial are not
repeated here.
The instructions I am about to give you now as well as those I gave you
earlier are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. I emphasize,
however, that this does not mean they are more important than my oral
instructions. Again, all instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or
not, must be followed.
Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action or remark that I
have made during the course of this trial have I intended to give any opinion or
suggestion as to what your verdict should be.
1
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 3 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.2 - BURDEN OF PROOF
In these instructions you are told that your verdict depends on whether
you find certain facts have been proved. The burden of proving a fact is upon
the party whose claim or defense depends upon that fact. The party who has
the burden of proving a fact must prove it by the greater weight of the evidence.
To prove something by the greater weight of the evidence is to prove that it is
more likely true than not true. It is determined by considering all of the
evidence and deciding which evidence is more believable. If, on any issue in
the case, the evidence is equally balanced, you cannot find that issue has been
proved.
The greater weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the
greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented.
2
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 4 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.3 - IMPEACHMENT
In Preliminary Instruction No.3, I instructed you generally on the
credibility of witnesses. I now give you this further instruction on how the
credibility of a witness can be "impeached" and how you may treat certain
evidence.
A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence; by
a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; or by
evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to
say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony.
If earlier statements of a witness were admitted into evidence, they were not
admitted to prove that the contents of those statements were true. Instead,
you may consider those earlier statements only to determine whether you think
they are consistent or inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness, and
therefore whether they affect the credibility of that witness.
If you believe that a witness has been discredited or impeached, it is your
exclusive right to give that witness's testimony whatever weight you think it
deserves.
If you believe that any witness testifying in this case has knowingly
sworn falsely to any material matter in this case, then you may reject all of the
testimony of the witness.
3
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 5 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.4 - AGENCY
Defendants are sued as principal and agent. O'Neal is sued as the
principal, and Eaves is sued as his agent. Defendants admit than an agency
relationship existed. As a result, if you find that Eaves is liable to Latcham,
then both O'Neal and Eaves are liable to Latcham. If you find that Eaves is not
liable to Latcham, then neither Eaves nor O'Neal is liable to Latcham.
4
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 6 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.5 - NEGLIGENCE
Latcham claims that defendants are liable because Eaves drove
negligently and caused Latcham to sustain injuries and other damages. To
establish that defendants are liable for negligence, Latcham must prove the
following two elements by the greater weight of the evidence:
One, that Eaves was negligent;
The parties have stipulated-that is, they haveagreed-that Eaves was negligent.
And two, that the negligence was a legal cause of Latcham's injuries.
The term "legal cause" means an immediate causewhich, in the natural or probable sequence, producesthe injury complained of. For legal cause to exist, theharm suffered must be a foreseeable consequence ofthe act complained of. In other words, liability cannotbe based on mere speculative possibilities orcircumstances and conditions remotely connected tothe events leading up to an injury. The conduct musthave such an effect in producing the harm as to leadreasonable people to regard it as a cause of theplaintiff's injury.
A legal cause is a cause that produces a result in anatural and probable sequence, and without which theresult would not have occurred.
A legal cause does not need to be the only cause of aresult. A legal cause may act in combination withother causes to produce a result.
If you find that "legal cause" has been proved by the greater weight of the
evidence, you should consider whether Latcham was contributorily negligent as
explained in Final Instruction No.6 and/ or whether Latcham assumed the risk
5
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 7 of 19
as explained in Final Instruction No.7. If, on the other hand, "legal cause" has
not been proved by the greater weight of the evidence, then your verdict must
be for defendants on this claim.
6
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 8 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.6 - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Defendants claim that Latcham was contributorily negligent.
Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a plaintiff which, when
combined with the negligence of a defendant, contributes as a legal cause in
bringing about the injury of the plaintiff.
A plaintiff who is contributorily negligent may still recover damages if
that contributory negligence is slight, or less than slight, when compared with
the negligence of the defendant.
In determining this issue, you must determine the answer to two
questions:
One, whether Latcham was also negligent;
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. It isthe doing of something which a reasonable personwould not do, or the failure to do something which areasonable person would do, under facts similar tothose shown by the evidence. The law does not sayhow a reasonable person would act under the factssimilar to those shown by the evidence. That is foryou to decide.
And two, if Latcham was also negligent, whether Latcham's
negligence was (a) slight or less than slight, or (b) more than slight in
comparison with the negligence of Eaves.
The term "slight" means small when compared withthe negligence of Eaves.
7
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 9 of 19
In making this determination, you must make a directcomparison between the conduct of Latcham and ofEaves.
If you find Latcham's contributory negligence is more than slight when
compared with the negligence of Eaves, then Latcham is not entitled to recover
any damages.
In considering Eaves' negligence, you are instructed that statutes in this
state provide:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to make a left turn or semicircular orV-turn through an opening in the dividing curb section,separation, or line which has been designated and marked for useby maintenance and authorized vehicles only.
(2) A driver of any vehicle upon a highway before starting, stopping, orturning from a direct line shall first see that such movement canbe made in safety, and whenever the operation of any other vehiclemay be affected by such movement, shall give a signal by means ofthe hand and arm or by an approved mechanical or electricalsignal device, plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle ofthe intention to make such movement.
(3) On a roadway divided into lanes, a vehicle shall be driven as nearlyas practicable entirely within a single lane and may not be movedfrom such lane until the driver has first ascertained that suchmovement can be made with safety.
These statutes set the standard of care of a reasonable person. If you find that
a party violated any of these statutes, such violation is negligence.
If you find Latcham's contributory negligence is slight, or less than
slight, when compared with the negligence of Eaves, then Latcham is entitled
to recover damages unless he assumed the risk as explained in Final
8
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 10 of 19
Instruction No.7. However, Latcham's damages must be reduced in proportion
with the amount of his contributory negligence.
9
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 11 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.7 - ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Defendants claim that they are not liable for negligence because Latcham
assumed the risk. If a person assumes the risk of injury or damage, the
person is not entitled to any recovery. To support an assumption of the risk
defense, defendants must prove the following three elements by the greater
weight of the evidence:
One, that Latcham had actual or constructive knowledge of the
existence of the specific risk involved;
A person has constructive knowledge of a risk if therisk is so plainly observable that anyone of competentfaculties could be charged with knowledge of it.
Two, that Latcham appreciated the risk's character;
A person can be deemed to appreciate a risk if it is arisk that no adult person of average intelligence coulddeny.
And three, that Latcham voluntarily accepted the risk, having had
the time, knowledge, and experience to make an intelligent choice.
If you find that each of the three elements has been proved by the greater
weight of the evidence, then defendants are not liable for negligence, and your
verdict must be for defendants on this claim.
10
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 12 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.8 - ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND CONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCE COMPARED
While the same conduct on the part of Latcham may amount to both
assumption of risk and contributory negligence, the two defenses are distinct.
Assumption of the risk involves a voluntary or deliberate decision to encounter
a known danger whereas contributory negligence frequently involves the
inadvertent failure to notice danger. In addition, contributory negligence must
be a legal cause of the injury in order to be a defense, while assumption of the
risk need not cause the injury in order to bar recovery.
11
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 13 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO.9 - DAMAGES
If you decide for Latcham on the question of negligence, you must then
fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate Latcham
for any of the following elements of loss or harm suffered in person or property
and proved by the evidence to have been legally caused by defendants' conduct,
taking into consideration the nature, extent, and duration of the injury,
whether such loss or harm could have been anticipated or not, namely:
1. The disability and disfigurement;
2. The pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity of theenjoyment of life experienced in the past and reasonably certain tobe experienced in the future as a result of the injury;
3. The reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, andservices received, and the reasonable value of the necessaryexpense of medical care, treatment, and services reasonablycertain to be received in the future;
4. The earnings Latcham has lost, if any, from any source from thedate of the injury until the date of trial; and
5. Such sum as will reasonably compensate Latcham for whateverloss of earning capacity you find that he has suffered as a result ofthe injury.
The factors to be considered in determining themeasure of damages for loss of earning capacityinclude: what the plaintiff earned before theinjury, what the plaintiff is capable of earningafter the injury, the prior ability of the plaintiff,the extent to which the injuries affect theplaintiff's power to earn, age, life expectancy,physical condition, occupation, skill, and habitsof industry.
12
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 14 of 19
Even if the plaintiff is earning more moneynow than before the injury, the plaintiff isstill entitled to recover for a loss of earningcapacity reasonably certain to be sufferedduring the remainder of the plaintiff's lifeexpectancy.
Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the
evidence is for you to determine. Your verdict must be based on evidence and
not upon speculation, guesswork, or conjecture.
If you find that Latcham was contributorily negligent as discussed in
Final Instruction No.6, and that Latcham's contributory negligence was slight,
or less than slight, when compared with the negligence of Eaves, then you
must reduce Latcham's damages in proportion with the amount of his
contributory negligence.
13
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 15 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - FUTURE DAMAGES
The law allows damages for detriment reasonably certain to result in the
future. By their nature, all future happenings are somewhat uncertain. The
fact and cause of the loss must be established with reasonable certainty. Once
future detriment is established, the law does not require certainty as to the
amount of such damages. Thus, once the existence of such damages is
established, recovery is not barred by uncertainty as to the measure or extent
of damages, or the fact that they cannot be measured with exactness. On the
other hand, an award of future damages cannot be based on conjecture,
speculation, or mere possibility.
14
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 16 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - PRESENT VALUE
If you should find that Latcham is entitled to a verdict, and further find
that the evidence in the case establishes either:
1. a reasonable likelihood of future medical expense; or
2. a reasonable likelihood of loss of future earnings
then you must ascertain the present value in dollars of such future damage,
since the award of future damages necessarily requires that payment be made
now for a loss that will not be sustained until some future date.
Under these circumstances, the result is that Latcham will in effect be
reimbursed in advance of the loss, and so will have the use of money which he
would not have received until some future date, but for the verdict.
In order to make a reasonable adjustment for the present use of money
representing a lump-sum payment of anticipated future loss, the law requires
that you discount, or reduce to its present value, the amount of the anticipated
future loss, by taking (1) the interest rate or return which Latcham could
reasonably be expected to receive on an investment of the lump-sum payment
together with (2) the period of time over which the future loss is reasonably
certain to be sustained; and then reduce, or in effect deduct from, the total
amount of future loss whatever that amount would be reasonably certain to
earn or return, if invested at such rate of interest over such period of time; and
15
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 17 of 19
include in the verdict an award for only the present worth-the reduced
amount of anticipated future loss.
Bear in mind that your duty to discount to present value applies only to
loss of future earnings and future medical expenses. Damages for future pain
and suffering, future mental anguish, disability, and disfigurement are not
subject to any reduction for the present value of such money.
There has been evidence presented to you concerning the claim for future
medical expenses and future earnings in form of expert testimony. However, it
is your duty to determine whether the expert's adjustment for present value
was reasonable, and if not, you should make your own adjustment for present
value of any sum you determine Latcham is entitled for the above losses, if any.
Finally, in determining the present value of future damages, you may
also take into consideration the effect of inflation or deflation on the future
damages.
16
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 18 of 19
FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - DUTIES DURING DELIBERATIONS
In conducting deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain
rules you must follow.
First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your
members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions
and speak for you here in court.
Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another
in the jury room. You should try to reach an agreement if you can do so
without violence to individual judgment, because a verdict must be
unanimous.
Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after
you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors,
and listened to the views of your fellow jurors.
Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you
that you should. But do not come to a decision simply because other jurors
think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict. Remember at all times that you
are not partisans. You are judges-judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to
seek the truth from the evidence in the case.
Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations,
you may send a note to me through the marshal or court security officer,
signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in
17
Case 5:08-cv-05037-KES Document 62 Filed 11/19/2009 Page 19 of 19
writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell
anyone-including me-how your votes stand numerically.
Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law
which I have given to you in my instructions. The verdict must be unanimous.
Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should
be-that is entirely for you to decide.
Finally, the verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision that
you reach in this case. You will take this form to the jury room, and when
each of you has agreed on the verdict, your foreperson will fill in the form, sign
and date it, and advise the marshal or court security officer that you are ready
to return to the courtroom.
Dated November 19, 2009.
~?~KA EN E. SCHREIERCHIEF JUDGE
18